Submitted by This whitepaper from a RIP vendor summarizes the technology behind Vista’s XPS document format [.pdf] and its implementation as a print engine as compared to the current GDI in Windows XP. Will it suffer on non-Microsoft platforms, even if its specifications will be open, and how does it compare in methods and goals to Apple’s PDF-based Quartz rendering engine?
It’s a kind of funny to see a paper about XPS in PDF format…
okay, okay… not SO funny… =]
How can Microsoft be even more friendly to developers? Open up the specifications!
Great joke here.
This development is primarily about improving print quality in Windows. PDL produces crappy results. By keeping a document in its original format (XPS) all the way down to the printer, it provides better fidelity. For legacy printers, XPS provides a filtering architecture that rasterizes print output better than the driver can currently do.
Main goal is to lock people on MS.
Bzzt.
You’ve had too much GNU/Linux cake. I’m taking it away.
Be realistic. Microsoft is a business, and their primary goal is to make their shareholders happy by making as much profit as possible. Good or bad, MS isn’t creating XPS to help anyone but themselves. Every new feature, and every new tool is created with the sole purpose of increasing revenue or strengthening their market position.
Vendor lock-in exists, and just about any competitive company would love to be able to benefit from it in some way. Microsoft may not be able to leverage XPS directly for vendor lock-in, but considering their past history, I don’t blame anyone for suspecting the possibility.
XPS *is* helping the consumers as well as the hardware manufacturers. You really have no idea what you’re talking about.
XPS *is* helping the consumers as well as the hardware manufacturers.
Oh. XPS **is** helping consumers and hardware manufacturers?!
What a load of bull. You’re not a Microsoft employee are you? They all seem to get schooled in that annoying habit of putting emphasis on certain words in order to try and convince lesser beings that what they say must be right, and they talk endless crap about consumers, customers and partners.
Edited 2006-02-28 19:18
You don’t have to be a GNU/Linux advocate to understand that the main objective is MS lock-in; you just have to be able to read.
To quote the White Paper:
“As a document format, a key benefit of XPS is its integration with the Windows platform.This is accomplished on two levels: the format matches the WinFX imaging model which ties it intimately into the platform; and, the platform provides APIs, tools and applications that work with the format.”
“You don’t have to be a GNU/Linux advocate to understand that the main objective is MS lock-in; you just have to be able to read.
To quote the White Paper:
“As a document format, a key benefit of XPS is its integration with the Windows platform.This is accomplished on two levels: the format matches the WinFX imaging model which ties it intimately into the platform; and, the platform provides APIs, tools and applications that work with the format.”
Precisely. Absolutely. Hit the nail on the head. Exactly. Got it in one.
Perhaps Microsoft should have called it XPS-LI. The LI being for lock-in.
Microsofts motives here aren’t the least bit obscure. Clearly all they wish to do is avoid standards, particularly open standards, and force anyone unaware enough to buy Vista into a locked-in corner from which they cannot get out.
Meanwhile the rest of the world will use PDF, SVG and Poscript, and buisness who use Windows Vista will steadily and progressively find they have not only locked themselves in, but they have locked the majority of their potential customers out.
Microsoft doesn’t do interoperability. Just doesn’t do it. Deliberately doesn’t do it. Avodis it like the plague. No ODF support. No SVG. No Acid2 compliance. DirectX (not OpenGL). No Ogg Vorbis. No NFS. No generic Poscript printer driver. Bastardized Kerebos. DRM. Bastardized Java. Secret and incompatible application of CIFS. Incomplete support of PNG. Non-standard C and C++ extensions. ActiveX. On and on it goes.
Everywhere you turn Microsoft wants to lock you in, and lock everyone non-Microsoft out. It isn’t for **YOUR** benefit as a user of Microsoft’s products – this is done purely for Microsofts own gain.
So why they don’t use pdf …
So why they don’t use pdf …
Because PDF is riddled with patents from the ground up – Apple gets away with it by avoiding the patented stuff; Microsoft on the other hand don’t want to be beholden to a company who at any time can screw them over – I don’t blame them.
The fact that one will be able to use it royalty free makes it a great technology for the future; we’ll have Cairo on UNIX/Linux, XPS for Windows and PDF/PS on MacOS X; but I am sure with enough convincing by Microsoft, you’ll see XPS support in MacOS X Preview; right now the XPS specification is sitting at version 0.8 IIRC, you’ll need to blog search for the link to the document.
Because PDF is riddled with patents from the ground up
Not a valid reason, and a pretty weak one at that. You’ve already mentioned that Apple avoids the patented parts, and PDF, and especially PS, are standards throughout the Unix/Linux, CUPS and Apple worlds. There is also SVG to add to the alphabet soup.
There is no reason in the world that Microsoft couldn’t have used accepted standards in the name of interoperability. The simple reason why is that Microsoft always have to do their own implementation, and whether people like that or not, it is about control and lock-in.
The fact that one will be able to use it royalty free makes it a great technology for the future; we’ll have Cairo on UNIX/Linux
No we won’t. You should know that the open source world cannot just implement royalty free stuff carte blanche. Avoiding anything patented, as in the case of PDF, is far easier because it is a defined standard, it’s already being used and things are just much clearer. Besides, Cairo nor any other engine needs XPS.
Don’t spout the royalty free thing please. It doesn’t mean anything.
you’ll see XPS support in MacOS X Preview
Will we really. And OS X needs this why?
Edited 2006-02-28 12:42
Not a valid reason, and a pretty weak one at that. You’ve already mentioned that Apple avoids the patented parts, and PDF, and especially PS, are standards throughout the Unix/Linux, CUPS and Apple worlds. There is also SVG to add to the alphabet soup.
There is no reason in the world that Microsoft couldn’t have used accepted standards in the name of interoperability. The simple reason why is that Microsoft always have to do their own implementation, and whether people like that or not, it is about control and lock-in.
Oh bullshit; PDF is support is already available in Office 2007 along with XPS – are you scared that maybe XPS might pick up some popularity and start to challenge the strangle hold that PDF has on the electronic document market?!
No we won’t. You should know that the open source world cannot just implement royalty free stuff carte blanche. Avoiding anything patented, as in the case of PDF, is far easier because it is a defined standard, it’s already being used and things are just much clearer. Besides, Cairo nor any other engine needs XPS.
Well, XPS is a define standard as well; so why not support it? or is this going to be another example of anti-Microsoft bigotry; cutting the nose of to spite the face.
Will we really. And OS X needs this why?
Because it would be pretty obvious that if Microsoft is going to provide Office for Mac OS X, and XPS takes off, consumers will demand a decent level of support for the file format.
Oh bullshit;
Oh right. Where’s the ODF support then?
PDF is support is already available in Office 2007 along with XPS
PDF is in Office 2007 simply because Microsoft wants to surround and replace it with Metro and XPS, because PDF (and Postscript) is an accepted standard in the professional printing world which Microsoft is a bit uncomfortable with.
are you scared that maybe XPS might pick up some popularity
Errr, no. I just wonder why Microsoft reinvents the wheel and doesn’t just use accepted, working and well used standards from other operating systems and software.
the strangle hold that PDF has on the electronic document market?!
Pot. Meet kettle. PDF is a perfectly implementable standard, unlike Microsoft’s Office formats. You didn’t write the above with a straight face, surely?
Well, XPS is a define standard as well;
Is it? Wow, I didn’t know it had as much support and usage as PDF and Postscript in the professional printing world all these years. Where have they been hiding it?
so why not support it?
Because nobody uses it? Why doesn’t Microsoft just use PDF, Postscript and SVG like other sensible people have done in their operating systems and software?
Supporting stuff because Microsoft invented it just isn’t an answer, although many people at Microsoft and their supporters bizarrely seem to think that it is. Can’t think why.
or is this going to be another example of anti-Microsoft bigotry; cutting the nose of to spite the face.
Arrrrr. There, there. Let’s try and desperately turn this into an ‘everybody hates Microsoft’ thing. You’re a wonderfully interesting group of people. I wonder if anyone has done any psychological studies into you anywhere?
Because it would be pretty obvious that if Microsoft is going to provide Office for Mac OS X, and XPS takes off, consumers will demand a decent level of support for the file format.
There’s my lock-in argument confirmed. Thank you.
Oh, and I just love how it’s *consumers* who are going to be demanding support for XPS. Brilliant! Oh, and did you notice my Microsoft training of putting emphasis on key words there?!
Love it.
Edited 2006-02-28 19:19
Oh right. Where’s the ODF support then?
Oh right, so where is the ODF plugin for Office?! nothing stopping someone from grabbing the ODF specs and creating their own plugin for Office! If it is so important, that person might even get funding from a few companies who are interested in that support!
PDF is in Office 2007 simply because Microsoft wants to surround and replace it with Metro and XPS, because PDF (and Postscript) is an accepted standard in the professional printing world which Microsoft is a bit uncomfortable with.
XPS is Metro – and whats wrong with offering the consumer another choice? they offer PDF and they offer XPS; let the consumer decide which is best for his or her needs; or is this the old communist ideology of ‘you don’t know what you want, so leave it up to us elite to make those tough decisions for you!’
You seem to have a major problem with Microsoft offering choices! good lord, the possibility that you might just have to actually CHOOSE which file format you want rather than it being rammed down your proverbial throat! shock! horror!
I *CHOOSE* to use iTunes over Windows Media Player, I *CHOOSE* to use GAIM over YIM/AOL/Google, I *CHOOSE* to use VLC over Windows Media Player.
I have made choices, and this will be another choice for the market to make; do they continue to support PDF or do they give XPS a try, give its fairly liberl nature in respects to its royalty free licencing and encouragement to other vendors to support the format.
If XPS is submited to ECMA, in full, what are you going to do? will you continue to use PDF even though XPS would be an official openstandard? sounds like it, by the tone of your post; its all about hating Microsoft rather than praising the idea that maybe another format out there, as competition to PDF, is just what is required.
Oh right, so where is the ODF plugin for Office?! nothing stopping someone from grabbing the ODF specs and creating their own plugin for Office!
Right….. So why doesn’t Microsoft do it then?
they offer PDF and they offer XPS; let the consumer decide which is best for his or her needs;
Which is built into Windows and Office, and the PDF implementation in there is something Microsoft controls. The user will in no way end up deciding.
Let’s get this customer and consumer choice bullshit out of the way, OK. I know you Microsoft guys sit having it brainwashed into you, but it doesn’t exist, OK?
or is this the old communist ideology of ‘you don’t know what you want, so leave it up to us elite to make those tough decisions for you!’
Nice communist argument there, and yes, that’s exactly what Microsoft does ;-).
You seem to have a major problem with Microsoft offering choices!
Oh right, so ODF is a choice then? Since when has Microsoft done choice?
good lord, the possibility that you might just have to actually CHOOSE which file format you want
There’s no point in Microsoft giving people the choice of their own, controlled format. Open and accepted standards in PDF, PS and SVG already exist. Tell Microsoft to adopt them.
If XPS is submited to ECMA, in full, what are you going to do?
Yet more ECMA bollocks. Just because Microsoft submits something to the ECMA it doesn’t mean that it isn’t patented (the exact opposite in fact), it doesn’t mean that the technology isn’t under Microsoft’s control and it doesn’t stop Microsoft from creating extensions that are not part of the ECMA submission, like .Net.
The ECMA stuff is about playing at being open.
Yet more ECMA bollocks. Just because Microsoft submits something to the ECMA it doesn’t mean that it isn’t patented (the exact opposite in fact), it doesn’t mean that the technology isn’t under Microsoft’s control and it doesn’t stop Microsoft from creating extensions that are not part of the ECMA submission, like .Net.
Anyone, not just MS, is free to participate in the ECMA process and help evolve the standards (and several entities have). The other formats you mentioned also have patents on them. XPS et al., are no less open than they are. ECMA is only deminished in your view due to your bias against MS. The reality does not fit your bias. Is ISO also “bollocks” because they also approved C# and CLI as standards, and will likely approve other MS submissions in the pipeline?
.NET is an extension of the ECMA/ISO standard in the same way that MFC/Win32, etc. are extensions of the C++ standard. .NET is one (of many) implementations that conform to the standard and include the standard libraries. It also includes new libraries to support MS-specific needs. Mono likewise includes *n*x-specific libraries. This is what is expected and encouraged, and is the whole point.
A programming environment wouldn’t be of much use if one could not build code on top of it that is specific to their applications. The standard is there to create a common base that developers can use to build solutions to their specific problems. It is not there to solve everyone’s problems from the start and offer no means of extensibility. And just because MS actually uses the platform does not mean everything they produce should be rolled into the standard.
Edited 2006-03-01 18:00
Where can I get a copy of Office 2007?
Strangle hold? It is the fact that this necessary piece of software has such a well documented interface that makes it so usable and popular.
According to the White Paper referenced by these comments, XPS is still being defined with the ultimate discretion of one corporation. This makes it neither “well define (sic)” nor a standard. If it turns out to be well documented, usable by any one, multi-platform friendly, and technologically superior to current formats, it will be welcomed.
And as far as Microsoft providing Office for Macs; do you have information that can be substantiated? I seem to recall that IE for Macs was recently discontinued with little or no input from consumers. The fact that they are just now getting around to supporting PDFs, due to customers requests, is laughaable
And as far as Microsoft providing Office for Macs; do you have information that can be substantiated?
Microsoft Commits to New Versions of Office for Mac
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/jan06/01-10Macworld20…
Q&A: Microsoft’s Renewed Commitment to Developing for the Mac
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/jan06/01-10MacWorl…
Microsoft Office Open XML Formats
http://blogs.msdn.com/rick_schaut/archive/2005/06/01/424086.aspx
Hitting the Office Links
http://blogs.msdn.com/rick_schaut/archive/2005/10/03/476480.aspx
I seem to recall that IE for Macs was recently discontinued with little or no input from consumers.
Most consumers used Safari. MacBU could either support IE even though the userbase was lessening and its continued support would take resources from other projects, or they could support the standard browser for the platform. They chose to support the platform browser, and this support will continue with plugins for XPS and WPF/E.
XPS Viewers
http://blogs.msdn.com/andy_simonds/archive/2005/10/31/487487.aspx
What is WPF/E?
http://www.adamkinney.com/note.aspx?id=66
The fact that they are just now getting around to supporting PDFs, due to customers requests, is laughaable
It may be, but that’s what happened, and it wasn’t a trivial addition.
Native PDF support in Office “12”
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2005/10/01/476067.aspx
Save as PDF in Office “12”
http://blogs.msdn.com/cyndy_wessling/archive/2005/10/07/478419.aspx
Answers to some common questions
http://blogs.msdn.com/cyndy_wessling/archive/2005/10/13/480865.aspx
The press releases and blogs you pointed me to commit only to converters to XPS. And as the support for MACs is to be released some time after the Windows release, it is some 18 months to two years away. I won’t hold my breath.
Your rebuttal to my comment regarding IE only confirms it.
To a software company with the supposed resources of Microsoft, “not trivial” is an oxymoron. Especially when viewed from the perspective of it taking 10 plus years to achieve.
I find it telling that you did not bother to rebut my comment that it will not be a _standard_ nor is it yet fully and finally documented.
Because PDF is riddled with patents from the ground up – Apple gets away with it by avoiding the patented stuff; Microsoft on the other hand don’t want to be beholden to a company who at any time can screw them over – I don’t blame them.
In that case they could simply opt for SVG or OASIS instead. That is, if their intentions would be as good in reality, as they would like them to be heard comming out from their PR.
And if it is bad for MS to use Adobe controlled format, why it is not bad for the rest of the world to use MS controlled product. (read bellow before answering)
The fact that one will be able to use it royalty free makes it a great technology for the future; we’ll have Cairo on UNIX/Linux
Royalty free IS NOT FREE. Get with the facts. It is until free vendor decides different. Remember GIF? Remember MP3? This is what royalty free means
but I am sure with enough convincing by Microsoft, you’ll see XPS support in MacOS X Preview
And OSX users would use it,… why?
Probably the same reason as they OSX need Windows Media Player? To be installed, declared as half-assed not really finished product and thrown to trash.
You have to admit. User wasn’t bored at least for 10 minutes, even though they were wasted.
right now the XPS specification is sitting at version 0.8 IIRC, you’ll need to blog search for the link to the document
It could be at version 3245876345.44 and it wouldn’t make a case here. It is NOT FREE and its implementations in OSS are NOT guarateed.
As long as MS doesn’t learn to play with OSS, its playground will be limited to him self. But then again, this is probably their goal from the start anyway.
For a format to be suppoerted by any open source software, the specification license and the patent licenses have to be royalty free AND sublicensable.
If the spec and patent licenses are not sublicenseable you are not allowed to license your software as open source to anybody else, because that licensing would need to include a license for the patents and specs.
Please do not think that the BSD licensed software is in some way different in that regard.
Maybe their effort will bring something good: people will surely make wrapper around XPS printer drivers so printers currently unsupported in linux will actually be usable.
Printing under linux is well supported, but it’s hard to match windows.
Anything to stop windows print driver acrobatics would be a blessing. Wouild you be able to print from machine A to printer C attached to machine B with only knowledge of and driver for C on B without configuring a printer on A is the question. What a boon that would be to citrix etc.
XPS is a fixed document format.This means that the layout of lines and pages within the document are fixed.
SVG
The XPS format is based on eXtensible Markup Language (XML)
SVG
The whole bundle, or package, in XPS terminology, is stored within a container
based on the zip-format.
~SVGz
The extension mechanism allows third parties – and Microsoft – to add functionality to the format in order to support specific workflows or devices.
We all know what the combination of “MS” and “add functionality” leads to.
Will it suffer on non-Microsoft platforms
I’d be surprised if it didn’t.
Edited 2006-02-28 08:42
Just to clear up… These XPS thing is royalty free and all (better than PDF in this point), but still have patents, so it doesn’t fit very well with OSS software… just like Office12’s OpenXML file format…
Too bad… because it’s a nice initiative and could add a lot of value to computing world if it could be freely implemented…
Just to clear up… These XPS thing is royalty free and all (better than PDF in this point), but still have patents, so it doesn’t fit very well with OSS software… just like Office12’s OpenXML file format…
And royalty free is here more problems than patents. MP3, GIF? Both were royaly free. Where did we end up, with zillion free imlementations, but none can be used legaly. A waste of time.
Too bad… because it’s a nice initiative and could add a lot of value to computing world if it could be freely implemented…
Why would it be a good initiative?
1. To reimplement the wheel once again?
2. To waste the time of developers?
3. To get YAPRM (yet another print rendering mechanism)? Like there wouldn’t be enough of them already in the wild.
Just to clear things up… MP3 was never royalty free.
Because if we have a good implementation accessible to anyone that we could implement as a real standard not worrying about royalties, patents and other stuff that you still have to worry about with the current technologies, and as a bonus something that’s based in the XML standard, well, I don’t see how it doesn’t look good in a long term scenario.
Because if we have a good implementation accessible to anyone that we could implement as a real standard not worrying about royalties, patents and other stuff that you still have to worry about with the current technologies, and as a bonus something that’s based in the XML standard, well, I don’t see how it doesn’t look good in a long term scenario.
Unfortunately, in an ideal world, we would have one universal disk format which all operating systems could use without issue, there would be one file format that covered all the bases, and software companies would compete on features and benefits to the customer rather than whining about Patents – as the case with the current Blueberry saga, and the whiner who whinged that their half baked POS didn’t grab the same level of popularity that Blueberry has garnered.
It wouldn’t matter who was top dog, be it IBM, Microsoft or what have you, there would always been an organisation or organisations that’ll stand in the way of something simply to protect their vested interest.
Its time that all the major vendors get together and work on a format. What about open document format that the government chose. Windows hasnt had a problem in the past with buying off companies so above is not valid. DOS hyperterm etc..
What needs to be used is something with the likes of a BSD or closed source friendly licence.
Dajavu or something is more open but microsoft need something that wont taint their OS. This is why microsoft have decided to produce their own. Making standards open is one thing what about patents on how to produce standards complient code?
I like our GNU/Linux pie without it do you seriously think microsoft would be making such an effort?
Edited 2006-02-28 15:13
http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=137532
Go check that video out for those who are interested and see where the actual benefits of XPS are. It is just NOT ANOTHER document format….well it is but it has its advantages and I like it. *ducks and runs for cover* But honestly guys check out the vid. IIRC this is the correct one!
PDF is support is already available in Office 2007 along with XPS
So why XPS if they already got PDF, hm?
are you scared that maybe XPS might pick up some popularity and start to challenge the strangle hold that PDF has on the electronic document market?!
Yes. PDF is more or less supported on all major OS platforms, XPS ist not. One might not like Adobe, but at least document interchange with PDF works.
Well, XPS is a define standard as well; so why not support it?
What happens when every company starts to define new standards? Standards are needed for interchange. If every OS has its own standards, interchange won’t be possible. Simple as that.
MS is the sole player that is not interested in standards and free interchange because their the only ones who are at risk to lose their “strangle hold” on the OS market.
We already had the – MS does their own HTML “standard”, Java “standard”, Kerberos “standard”, SVG “standard” story, etc.
Because it would be pretty obvious that if Microsoft is going to provide Office for Mac OS X, and XPS takes off, consumers will demand a decent level of support for the file format.
Wishful thinking. Ever seen a .NET implementation from MS for a non-MS OS for example? How about the shitty support for WMA / WMV on Macs or any other OS from MS?
Besides, do you know any other company that could force a new standard into the market as MS does? Time to break that monopoly behaviour by simply ignoring “their own standards”.
Submitter here.
1. Consumers *aren’t* asking for a new file format or demonstrating displeasure with PDF. They’re asking for a word processor to not mangle color spaces when printing a 24-bit image, and asking the display engine to gracefully manage things like gradients.
2. The issue of desktop printers *needing* an internal RIP (outside of the prepress world) died when computers got the power to do this internally, roughly five years ago. Adobe was formed by prepress people and its software has consistently met the needs of the field; Acrobat 6 format is now technically prepress quality. Moreover, in-printer RIPs don’t speed up performance nearly as much as they used to.
3. In order to compete with Quartz (display PostScript, circa 1987) and Cairo, Vista also must have a device-independent, resolution-independent imaging system which automatically manages the difference between RGB and CMYK spaces. Unfortunately it appears Vista will keep WPF for screen and XPS for print.
4. Historically Microsoft is not in the business of willingly licensing anyone else’s technology (regardless of the benefits or their obvious ability to afford said licenses) when they can imitate it instead. Just as historically, these imitations tend to be integrated tightly with the OS so as to provide excuses for not porting equally capable versions to other platforms. (WMV)
5. There are no significant complaints with PostScript as a print rendering subsystem, in nearly 20 years worth of usage. It does not, however, provide “drastic measure” DRM the way XPS promises to (which will, in turn, require vendors and developers to purchase decoder licenses from MS). (WMA)
6. As a generic Office format, the promise Microsoft’s making is that Word and Excel and PowerPoint will now share a universal format which is simultaneously editable by Office users and printable by non-Office users (by nature of its JAR-file containing both the source and the executable as it were). This was the promise OpenDoc made, but PDF crushed it in a webless decade obsessed with paper print results and small file sizes.
OpenDoc died largely because software vendors could not be coerced into shoehorning their future development into a neutral party’s specs — the same exact argument Microsoft is making against OASIS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_%28graphics%29
http://developer.apple.com/graphicsimaging/quartz/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDoc
In order to compete with Quartz (display PostScript, circa 1987) and Cairo, Vista also must have a device-independent, resolution-independent imaging system which automatically manages the difference between RGB and CMYK spaces. Unfortunately it appears Vista will keep WPF for screen and XPS for print.
Their previous solution, GDI, was device and resolution independent. It has limitations, but not those.
RE: XPS/WPF
They are basically the same. XPS is a subset of WPF including only items that make sense for a document format/spool format/PDL. It doesn’t make sense to include everything from WPF in XPS. It’d only serve to bloat the format with features that are useless for XPS’ goals.
XPS Blog links:
http://blogs.msdn.com/xps
http://blogs.msdn.com/andy_simonds/
Edited 2006-02-28 23:03
I stand corrected.